604 / 736
Gaming and Lotteries
A facia-board shop sign bearing a company's name
which incorporated the words "turf accountants" was
not an advertisement "indicating that any particular
premises are a licensed betting office", contrary to Sec
tion 10
(5)
(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries
Act, 1963.
[Maurice Binks
(Turf Accountants) Ltd. v Huss;
Q.B.D.;
The Times,
7 November 1970.]
Habeas Corpus
•
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Browne)
granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords after
refusing an application for a writ of
habeas corpus
to
secure the release of Patrick Keane, a former mem
ber of
the
I.R.A. and a
leading member of Saor
Eire
(Free Ireland), which had "excited considerable
and persistent interest and attention of the Irish police
and government". He was committed to Brixton prison
pending his return to the Republic of Ireland by the
Old Street magistrate in August under the Backing of
Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, on charges of
murdering a policeman in Dublin and armed robbery in
Co. Wicklow this year.
[R v Brixton Governor,
ex parte
Keane; Q.B.D.
(1970); 3 AER 74.]
Insurance
A motorist who recovers an award of £3,100 and costs,
but who fails to notify the insurance company of the
other party of such motor accident in time in accordance
with the conditions of the other party's policy which are
declared conditions precedent to
the
liability of that
insurance company, cannot subsequently recover from
the liquidator under the Insurance Act, 1964, if that
insurance company is subsequently wound up.
[Re
Equitable Insurance Co.—Application of John
Butler—Supreme Court (Budd, Fitzgerald, MacLoughlin
J. J.) affirming Kenny J.; Unreported; 13 Nov. 1969.]
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant of leasehold premises which now consist of
a groundfloor shop and living accommodation on three
floors above is not disqualified from acquiring the free
hold under the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, merely
because years ago the shop part was joined up with the
shop next door by knocking a hole in the party wall.
[Peck v Anicer Properties Ltd.; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
15 October 1970.]
Local Authority
Redbridge London Borough Council, who had allowed
a street trader to obstruct the free passage of a highway
for several years before they eventually prosecuted him,
could not be held to have granted him a licence to com
mit the offence and were not debarred from prosecuting.
[Redbridge London Borough Council
v
Jaques;
Q.B.D.;
The Times,
21 October 1970.]
A local authority, in order to establish a defence under
Section
1
(2) of
the Highways
(Miscellaneous Provi
sions) Act, 1961,
to an action for damages resulting
from their failure to maintain a highway, only need to
show that their method of inspecting the highway was
reasonable, even though it might have been practicable
to inspect it more frequently than in fact was done.
[Pridham v Hemel Hempstead Corporation; Court of
Appeal;
The Times,
30 October 1970.]
Local Government
Plaintiff, lady of sixty-three, claims damages for mis
feasance. The defendants are alleged to have defectively
constructed a footpath in Bray in 1937, so that a sub
sidence which led to the cracking of the concrete surface,
was alleged to be negligent. By reason of the state of the
footpath,
the plaintiff fell and sustained
injuries
in
October 1961. As the jury concluded, in response to the
only question submitted to them, that the defendants
in the construction of the footway had acted reasonably,
and exercised care and skill, Murnaghan J. gave judg
ment for defendants.
It had been proved that in the construction of the
footpath the defendants failed to provide a hard core
foundation beneath the concrete slabs. Although there
was no reference in the evidence to the high cost of
providing hard core, Murnaghan J. referred to
it as
important in his charge. He declined to recall the jury
a second time. The Supreme Court (6 Dalaigh C.J.,
Walsh and Fitzgerald J. J.) held that the jury ought not
to have been
invited
to attribute to
the defendant's
decision an element that was irrelevant.
The second ground of appeal arose out of the evidence
of the defendant's engineer to the general effect that one
of the causes of foundation settlement in footpaths is the
additional load
thrown upon
them by motor vehicles
mounting the footpath. Murnaghan J. in referring to this
in his charge, did not draw the jury's attention to the
fact that there was no evidence that the damage to the
footpath
in
this particular instance was
in any way
atributable to motor traffic, despite counsel's request to
re-instruct the jury on this point. This should have been
clearly stated to the jury. The Supreme Court accord
ingly set aside the verdict and judgment, and directed a
new trial.
[Kirwan v Bray U.D.C.; Supreme Court; Unreported;
30 July 1969.]
Master and Servant
Apprentices in the woodworking trade under deeds of
apprenticeship
for
five-year periods, which
in
terms
contemplate assigning the apprentice to another master,
are not "continuously employed" for the purpose of
payments under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, if
during
the apprenticeship they have more
than one
master.
[Lee and another v Barry High Ltd.]
146